The court emphasized that the term 'sufficient cause' for delay should be interpreted liberally to advance the cause of justice and that the delay should be condoned if it does not affect the rights of a third party.

JUDGMENT :

VINAY JOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order in M.A. No. 2145/2013 in O.A. No. 2168/2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur (CAT) on 19.01.2018. By said order, the petitioner’s application (M.A. No. 2145/2013), for condonation of delay in filing Original Application, came to be rejected, which is the subject matter of challenge.

3. The facts in brief are as such that, the petitioner was working as an Assistant General Manager, Telecom Department, Amravati with respondent no. 2. The petitioner was nominated as one of the member of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC). The petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge on the allegations that he committed irregularities in accepting second lowest tender, thereby causing loss to the ex-chequer. An enquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.08.2005, imposed punishment of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further directions that he will not get any increments during the period of such reduction. The petitioner preferred a review petition, however, it was dismissed by the Authority vide order dated 07.05.2008. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty and rejection of review application, the petitioner preferred Original Application, challenging both the actions of respondent. Since there was delay of 5 years in challenging the impugned order of penalty and rejection of review, petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the CAT under the impugned order.

4. It is advantageous to note the chronology of events for quick appreciation, which is as below:-

5. Though the question involved pertains to the limited aspect of condonation of delay, however, certain facts are necessary for better understanding. The petitioner Mr. Pawar, while functioning as an Assistant General Manager at Ahmednagar Telecom during the period of the year 1999-2000, was a Member of TEC along with two others namely Shri Bhat and Shri Nair. The said TEC has recommended the second lowest tender of M/s. Bay Talkitech Pvt. Ltd. for the work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Interactive Voice Response System. It is alleged that the said action of TEC was in gross violation of Rule 429 of the P&T Manual Volume-II and Rule 60 of P&T Financial Handbook Volume-I, thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage of Rs. 55,80,240/- to the said Private Company and corresponding loss of Government.

6. Regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He was found to have committed grave misconduct thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the C.C.S. [Conduct] Rules, 1964. The competent Authority has accepted the advise of UPSC, and imposed a penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three